High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
R.Rajalakshmi v. T.V.Palanisamy - CRP. NPD.1937 of 2007  RD-TN 2513 (26 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26-7-2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
CRP. NPD No.1937 of 2007
R.Rajalakshmi .. Petitioner vs.
T.V.Palanisamy .. Respondent Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against the fair and decreetal order passed in RCA No.32/2005 dated 22.9.2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ootacamandalam reversing the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.152/2004 and RCOP No.37/2004 dated 10.10.2005 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ootacamandalam. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondent : Mr.N.Damodaran ORDER
This revision has arisen from the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam, made in RCA No.32 of 2005 which arose from the order in I.A.No.152/2004 in RCOP No.37/2004.
2.The revision petitioner-landlady originally filed a petition against the respondents therein including the respondent herein as the first respondent on the ground of willful default alleging that originally, the property was leased out to this respondent and also one Madaiya Chettiar as joint tenants; that on vacating the premises, they handed over possession; that following the same, one portion of the property was leased out to the second respondent in the RCOP namely P.V.Govindan, and the other portion is being occupied by Madaiya Chettiar; that there was default in payment of rental; that under the circumstances, the petition was filed for eviction; that they have added the first respondent also, who is the respondent herein, pursuant to a suit filed by him, wherein he claimed to be a joint tenant; that though he failed before the trial Court, he came out successful in the appellate forum which recorded a finding that he was also a tenant; and that on that ground, he was also added as one of the respondents in the RCOP. In short, the case of the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller was that there was willful default in payment of rental by all the respondents therein, and hence, they were to be evicted.
3.The petition was resisted by the respondents therein putting forth their respective defence.
4.Pending the RCOP, I.A.No.152/2004 was filed under Sec.11(3) of the Act. The application was taken up for consideration. It was ordered. Aggrieved, the first respondent therein, who is the respondent herein, took it on appeal in RCA No.32/2005. It is seen that final orders were also passed in the RCOP, against which also another appeal in RCA No.17/2006 was filed. Both the appeals were taken up for consideration. Now, the appellate forum reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller in the said I.A. Under such circumstances, the landlady has brought forth this revision before this Court.
5.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
6.After looking into the materials available and hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be fit and proper that a direction to the Rent Controller to take the RCOP No.37/2004 on file has got to be given, and all these questions have got to be decided by the Rent Controller. The case of the revision petitioner originally before the Rent Controller was that the tenancy was entered into between Madaiya Chettiar and the respondent Palaniswamy, and they handed over possession of the property. Subsequently, one portion of the property was leased out to one Govindan, and the other part was leased out to Madaiya Chettiar. On his death, the legal representatives continued to be in possession. The respondent herein was added as party in view of the judgment made in the appeal, where he came out successful and got a declaration that he was also a joint tenant. Thus, the case of the revision petitioner, as could be seen above, was that both these tenements were occupied by the tenants, and thus, they are liable to be evicted, since they have defaulted in payment of rental. On the contrary, according to the respondent herein, he was a tenant in respect of only one portion, and he has been making a payment of monthly rental at the rate of Rs.4,000/-, and he was not to be evicted. As far as the other respondents are concerned, whether they are actually the tenants or whether Madaiya Chettiar and after him, his legal representatives or the other person namely Govindan, are the tenants have got to be further decided. Under the circumstances, both these tenements are put under one RCOP. Now, all these questions namely whether there was rental, and what was the actual rental paid by each of them, and whether there was willful default warranting an eviction have got to be decided by the Rent Controller. It is seen that the appellate forum has remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller. Under the circumstances, the Rent Controller is directed to take up the RCOP on file and give an opportunity to the opposite side to file their counter, proceed with the matter as one required in law and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the I.A. which was remanded for enquiry by the appellate forum, need not be gone into again.
7.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. To:
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority
2.The Rent Controller
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.